Is the K/T the Post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of
sedimentary rocks

Like many other forensic uncertainties, the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary
should be subject to the principle of multiple working hypotheses. There is no doubt
that it is an important question and stratigraphic locations abound. One of the
most popular locations is the K/T boundary. Evidence has been presented to support
that choice, one of which is a change from worldwide/continental to local/regional
sedimentation. However, a close analysis of this evidence suggests that it raises
more questions than it answers, supporting the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds
to the Late Cenozoic.

Figure 1. The geological column with the three Flood/post-Flood
boundary locations as shown by the arrows in the right hand column.

Creationists have shown that geological and paleontological observations are congruent
with the Genesis Flood and problematic for secular natural history. Uniformitarian1 scientists cannot explain
or ignore an increasing number of phenomena that contradict their interpretations,
such as the lateral extent of many strata and the absence of erosion between layers.2-4
In addition, many creationists are constructing comprehensive models to explain
the Flood, for example Brown;5,6 Budd;7 Hunter;8
Oard;9 Setterfield and Setterfield;10 Tyler;11 and Wise et al.12

Disdaining creationism, secular scientists seem unaware of much of this work. For
instance, in a new book critical of biblical history, a recent creation, a global
flood, and the accounts of Genesis, Young and Stearley13 misstate much about creationism and Flood geology,
seemingly content with straw men of their own devising to fill its many pages. Unfortunately,
this example of poor scholarship illustrates the deceptive influences of those opposed
to God’s truth.14

But for those interested in discerning truth, much work still remains. Controversies
remain within Flood geology, reflecting a variety of opinions, such as the location
of the Flood/post-Flood boundary. More important is the disagreement over our method.
Some creationists believe that competing ideas are a sign of problems. But this
fails to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of historical study. Both geology
and paleontology are complex, with many unknowns, and for that reason, it is healthy
to have multiple ideas to test, providing direction for our research. The idea
is as old as science, popularized by the late geologist, T.C. Chamberlin, in 1895
in the Journal of Geology. It was reprinted in 1995 with an introduction
by David Raup.15 Chamberlin
acknowledged the rudimentary stage of geology in his day, and argued that multiple
working hypotheses were better for the science than one ‘ruling hypothesis’.
He explained that advocates of a ruling hypothesis tend to ignore contrary data
or force data to fit their hypothesis, rather than test the hypothesis by the data:

“The theory then rapidly rises to a position of control in the processes of
the mind and observation, [and then] induction and interpretation are guided by
it. From an unduly favored child it readily grows to be a master and leads its author
withersoever it will.”16

Flood geology is nowhere near the advancement of uniformitarian geology at Chamberlin’s
time. Thousands of geologists and large amounts of money had taken the science from
the ‘gentleman amateurs’ of the early 1800s to a position of influence
in academia and society. Thus, we must be even more careful of ‘ruling’
hypotheses that distract from important questions and investigations. So, those
proposing hypotheses or models must accept the professional give and take that should
mark science, much less science done by Christians. I encourage the development
of ideas, but not the tendency to reject criticism and questioning. This is an application
of what the Bible calls ‘iron sharpening iron’ and will promote progress
that will be otherwise retarded by ‘ruling’ theories.

The alternatives

Given this methodological approach, I wish to examine the location of the post-Flood
boundary. I must first acknowledge opposition to the often-unspoken assumption that
the geological time scale is the metric for arguing this boundary. Three positions
were argued in Reed and Oard:17

the geological time scale represents a correct chronostratigraphic (relative) arrangement
of the rock record,18

it is an anti-biblical template not useful to diluvial research because it uses
time as its stratigraphic key,19
and

The third position is mine, and I believe it to be a middle ground between the two,
based on field evidence I have studied. For more information, I recommend reading
the cited literature.

For those who choose to use the time scale as at least an approximate yardstick,
there are three major proposals for the post-Flood boundary (figure 1). These are,
from oldest to youngest: (1) the Carboniferous, proposed by advocates of the recolonization
model,11 (2) the K/T boundary,12,21,22 and (3) the Late Cenozoic.23–27

1.

Change from worldwide/continental to local/regional sedimentation

2.

The Tertiary cooling trend

3.

Tertiary mammals of the western United States

4.

Tertiary bird and mammal tracks and the Devils corkscrews

5.

Tertiary volcanism in the northwest United States

6.

The cooling of ocean basalt while the continents rise

Table 1. Evidence for the K/T boundary proposal.

Why is the boundary important?

Creationists are interested in identifying the post-Flood boundary for several reasons.
Perhaps the most important is to show the presence of the Flood in the rock record
to those who do not believe it ever occurred. These include uniformitarians, theistic
evolutionists, and other old-earth creationists. Many of these people believe there
is little or no evidence for the Flood. For example, anti-creationist geologist,
Arthur Strahler proclaimed:

“Mainstream science has no obligation whatsoever to attempt to refute Flood
geology—a hypothesis vaguely and confusingly worded, lacking in completeness
of statement, and nearly devoid of evidence.”28

Strahler at least grudgingly admits we have a little evidence. But, the Christian
geologist, Davis Young, now retired as a geology professor from Calvin College,
is surprisingly less generous: “ … there is no geological evidence
to confirm the idea of a universal deluge.”29

A second and associated apologetic reason is to encourage confidence in the truth
and inerrancy of Scripture among Christians, who are fed a steady diet of the contrary
position by our culture and by Christians who believe too many Enlightenment ideas.
In addition to these apologetic reasons, the boundary constrains the part of the
rock record caused by the Flood, a crucial component of any Flood model.

Among creationists, the question of the extent, nature, and severity of post-Flood
catastrophes is a question that continues to be debated.

Third, it also allows a geologically-based understanding of post-Flood processes
and events, providing a context for the times between the Flood and the founding
of the Mesopotamian empires, which can be forensically studied by archaeology. Among
creationists, the question of the extent, nature, and severity of post-Flood catastrophes
is a question that continues to be debated. On the other side of this stratigraphic
boundary is information about late-Flood processes and events, which can provide
understanding about the nature of the changes during that time.

Fourth, the timing of the end of the Flood helps us understand the approximate number
of animals that formed the faunal baseline for later diversification and migration.
For example, if the correct location is the K/T boundary, the Tertiary would include
sediments and fossils laid down after the Flood. Given the extent and thickness
of some of these deposits, it would have been a time of waning catastrophes. Tertiary
fossils show a great variety of mammals all across the planet, requiring a model
for the fecund repopulation and rapid spread of these animals immediately after
the Flood.22 If the correct location is in the Late Cenozoic, then the
paleontological evidence would suggest a slower and less dramatic post-Flood diversification.
The number of animals spreading out from the ‘mountains of Ararat’ would
need to be explained only by the variety we see today and during the Ice Age.30 Thus, the boundary placement
affects the burgeoning subfield of baraminology.

A fifth reason is the timing of the Ice Age. Did it begin immediately after the
Flood in favorable locations, such as the mountains of Scandinavia, eastern and
central Canada, the Greenland mountains, and Antarctica, or was it delayed for several
centuries by large-scale post-Flood catastrophism?31 Would it have been possible on a globally warm
post-Flood Earth to delay the Ice Age, as shown by Cenozoic fossils at high latitudes?32-34

Sixth, since the boundary placement is foundational to developing Flood models,
effort may be wasted if the location is not known. Any creationist who assumes an
incorrect boundary will likely be wrong about events after the Flood and during
the late Flood period.

Finally, the responsibility of teaching the truth binds creationists to try to discern
as best they can the nature of the Flood, which they will teach to the church. We
should remember 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Examine everything
carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (NASB).

Reasons for a Late Cenozoic boundary

As a new creationist many years ago, I was influenced by the idea of significant
post-Flood catastrophism. I accepted the ‘Miocene’ Columbia River Basalts
(CRBs) as post-Flood; the arguments seemed valid.35
I accepted the ‘Pliocene’ dam breach hypothesis for the formation of
Grand Canyon.36,37 If asked, I would have suggested the end of the
Flood at the K/T boundary,38
though I had not thought through the issues.

But studies of the Ice Age, which began about 35 years ago28,38,39 and studies of geomorphology, which began about
20 years ago,40 raised
a number of questions about my boundary assumptions. I discovered a large body of
evidence against the Flood/post-Flood boundary being at the K/T boundary, especially
geomorphological evidence—a field often ignored by both secular geologists
and creationists. There are many surficial features that can only be explained by
Floodwater drainage.40 The late Roy Holt went through a similar metamorphosis:

“When beginning this research, I was slightly biased toward placing the Flood/post-Flood
boundary near the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. This bias came from private discussions
with creation researchers and reading creation research suggesting this location.
It was only after collecting most of the data presented herein that I became convinced
that the boundary was much later in the geologic record.”41

It is extremely important that creationists abandon absolute confidence in a globally
exact time scale and analyze each location on its own merits.

Just like Holt, and after much literature and field research, I came to the conclusion
that the boundary is located in the Late Cenozoic.26,40,42 However, it is important to note that there will
be exceptions because the geological time scale is not always an accurate reflection
of biblical earth history, even in its relative chronostratigraphy.20
Therefore, it is extremely important that creationists abandon absolute confidence
in a globally exact time scale and analyze each location on its own merits. Since
the various stages were developed by uniformitarian evolutionists, based on the
evolution ‘seen’ in the fossil record, skepticism is an appropriate
creationist response. In one location, the post-Flood boundary may be at the Pliocene/Pleistocene
boundary, while at another it could be early in the Pleistocene, or even the Pliocene.
But for sake of discussion, I will use the divisions of the geological time scale
to discuss the general location of the boundary.

I presented eleven geological and paleontological criteria to define the boundary,42
but some are qualitative and thus questionable. However, all of them pointed to
a Late Cenozoic boundary. Most areas that I have examined from either field or literature
research indicate a very Late Cenozoic boundary, often in the Early to Mid Pleistocene
in areas not affected by glaciation. This follows Holt,23 who also developed
boundary criteria. Though I am open to new research, I must take the advice of G.K.
Chesterton, who said: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of
opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”43

I believe that the boundary question is important to help discern truth in the various
Flood models that have appeared, and hope to generate a profitable exchange. Hopefully,
by applying multiple working hypotheses, the location of the real boundary can be
determined. To do so, we must first examine the evidence for the K/T boundary proposal.

The K/T Boundary hypothesis

The belief that the post-Flood boundary lies at the Cretaceous/Tertiary interface
is accepted by many creation geologists, although some state that the boundary is
not precise and could be in the Early Tertiary in some locations:

“Although creationists today are still working through exactly where Flood
and post-Flood boundaries are found in the rock record, the authors of this book
currently interpret the Primary [Paleozoic] and Secondary [Mesozoic] rocks as Flood
sediments and the Tertiary/Quaternary rocks as post-Flood.”44

A necessary corollary of this model is large-scale, post-Flood catastrophism, based
on Tertiary deposits and tectonism. Leonard Brand45
placed the boundary generally near or a little above the K/T boundary, based mainly
on his interpretation of Tertiary events not expected in the Flood:

“Exactly where in the fossil record the initial year of the flood ends is
especially difficult to determine. It is probably somewhere between the Cretaceous
and the Pliocene—a big range of uncertainty. Much more work is needed before
we have an adequate understanding of how to relate the end of the flood to the Cenozoic
fossil record … In this book, I have placed most of the Cenozoic in the postflood
period. This is only a working hypothesis. Other options must be kept in mind.”46

The origins of the K/T boundary model are obscure, but it reflects the opinion that
the Flood cannot account for certain features of the Tertiary rock and fossil records.
But these have not been adequately specified, and proponents need to present more
concrete evidence.

Wise and Brand admit that the K/T boundary is controversial and that their boundary
is merely a working hypothesis. They are to be applauded for this sensible caution.
But they sometimes do not follow that method, writing as if the K/T boundary is
certain. Thus, they place many important Tertiary events after the Flood.31,44,45
Hopefully, they will regain a proper skepticism and examine the data with an eye
towards multiple possibilities.

Critique of the K/T Boundary model

Evidence supporting the K/T boundary position is sparse, although recent work has
provided more information.21,22 Whitmore and Garner21 provide
multiple criteria in which to distinguish the post-Flood boundary—a method
similar to that of Oard.42 Unfortunately, some criteria for either position
are equivocal, and so a range of data must be evaluated. Whitmore and Garner21
think that coal deposits formed during the Flood, tailing off in the post-Flood
period to the present day. There are abundant Tertiary coal deposits, and I question
whether such large accumulations could happen after the Flood, and believe their
graph should show all the coal forming during the Flood and very little to none
after. One way to answer this question would be to derive convincing post-Flood
coal formation mechanisms that would account for thick, extensive, nearly pure coal
seams, like those in the Early Tertiary of the Powder River Basins of southeast
Montana and northeast Wyoming.

Whitmore and Garner21 appear to lean too heavily on uniformitarian paleoenvironmental
indicators. If these are not acceptable for Flood deposits, then why are they acceptable
for those under question? Transgressions, regressions, deltas, alluvial plains,
coastal features, and terrestrial deposits are often identified by a combination
of field data and presuppositions contrary to biblical history. Thus, logical consistency
demands that we examine the conclusions of secular scientists with some skepticism.

For example, secular geologists find terrestrial fossils in a deposit and thus consider
it a terrestrial environment. There is no consideration that terrestrial fauna may
have been catastrophically transported and buried in a marine setting. We know this
is possible because many terrestrial fossils occur in rocks that we all agree are
Flood deposits. Uniformitarian paleoenvironmental deductions stem from a different
worldview.47,48

One of the key locations in this boundary dispute is the Tertiary Green River Formation,
which Whitmore49-51 and Whitmore and Wise22 interpret
as a post-Flood lake. They present evidence, but there is also evidence for Flood
deposition,52-54 including the post-Green River erosion of approximately
5,000 m of sedimentary rocks from the San Rafael Swell. Another problem is the scale;
the Green River Formation is over 100,000 km3, or two and a half times
the volume of the Flood-deposited Coconino Sandstone.55 And it is not just the rocks; in 2005, scientists
estimated that the recoverable oil in the Green River oil shale would meet the oil
needs of the United States for 100 years! Fossils found in the Green River Formation,
such as palm trees and crocodiles, are typically found in tropical and subtropical
settings, but in a post-Flood Ice Age, the climate would have been much colder.
Even if the Ice Age could be delayed, the inland, high altitude location of the
Green River Formation would preclude tropical and subtropical organisms.

But looking at the overall evidence for the K/T boundary proposal, I have found
six major points to be analyzed below. I will analyze the first evidence in this
part and the next five in part 2 of this article.

The change from worldwide/continental to local/regional sedimentation

One of the major reasons offered by proponents of the K/T boundary hypothesis is
the diminishing scale of sedimentation during the Tertiary. This presumes that all
Flood deposits will be extensive and post-Flood deposition would be restricted.
Wise et al. stated:

“For our purposes here we would like to define the Flood/post-Flood boundary
at the termination of global-scale erosion and sedimentation. Based upon a qualitative
assessment of geologic maps worldwide, lithotypes change from worldwide or continental
in character in the Mesozoic to local or regional in the Tertiary. Therefore we
tentatively place the Flood/post-Flood boundary at approximately the Cretaceous/Tertiary
(K/T) boundary. We believe further studies in stratigraphy, paleontology, paleomagnetism,
and geochemistry should allow for a more precise definition of this boundary.”56

Despite this call for further work to pin down the tentative choice, those
studies have not been performed.

There are several problems with this argument. First, terms such as ‘local’
and ‘regional’ are subjective and unquantified. Second, large-scale
Flood strata of the same lithology are not global or continental; they are regional
to megaregional. Snelling noted that the Tonto Group at the bottom of the Grand
Canyon covers only parts of the United States and Canada.3 It is an extensive
deposit—inexplicable to uniformitarians—but the criteria for correlation
are not always precise. It is interesting that a similar sequence of lithologies
is found in many places: Grand Canyon (figures 2 and 3), Wyoming, and Montana (figures
4 and 5). The sequence is: (1) Precambrian igneous or metamorphic basement, (2)
erosion down to an erosion surface, (3) coarse sandstone, (4) shale, and (5) carbonate.
Reed saw a similar sequence in the midcontinent region, but attributed it to the
initial Flood transgression;57
in other words, to the Flood’s hydraulic processes rather than particular
periods of time.

Figure 6. Extent of the Navajo Sandstone and its equivalent formations
in the Western United States.

Figure 7. Area of Morrison Formation. (Drawing by Melanie Richard.)

Thus, creationists who see the rock record as a record of periods of time (even
short ones during the Flood) rather than a record of hydrodynamic sedimentation,
look for correlations based on ages determined by methods that they reject. Claiming,
for example, that the Tonto Group extends over most of North America not only lacks
convincing documentation, but it assumes correlation by time rather than process.
Fossils or cycles determined by uniformitarian scientists are questionable at best
in the Flood paradigm; it must be the lithological sequence and its inherent
hydraulic properties that are documented. It is the lithology of the above sequence
that can be correlated from Grand Canyon to Montana, but has this lithological sequence
been verified for northern Canada and the Appalachian Basin west of the Blue Ridge
Mountains?

Because uniformitarians have historically relied on biostratigraphy (based on evolution)
to date strata, and because neocatastrophists have proposed nothing new, and because
the International Commission on Stratigraphy is resorting to defining stage boundaries
by fiat,58 the true extent
of Flood strata is unknown, and correlation is next to impossible. Geologists have
tried and abandoned lithology, fossil content, and index fossils. Radiometric dating
is unreliable, and problems abound with magnetostratigraphy and correlating sediments
to astronomical cycles. Thus, Flood geologists must examine the question of correlation
and seek a return to an empirical stratigraphy.59

But approximations are possible. For example, it appears that the Redwall Limestone
at Grand Canyon might be correlated with the Madison Limestone in Wyoming, Montana,
and the Black Hills of South Dakota. These in turn might be correlated to late Paleozoic
limestones in the Midwest and the Appalachian Mountains. But none of this can be
verified without extensive field and literature research. The Coconino Sandstone
in Grand Canyon can be tracked east into New Mexico and western Texas and probably
into Kansas and Oklahoma,60
but these are hardly continental-scale lithologies.

Mesozoic lithologies are not even subcontinental in scale; one type of strata cannot
be traced too far. Mesozoic sedimentary rocks occur in great variety. For example,
in the western United States, lithologies vary, but can be correlated over regional
scale distances, such as the Jurassic Navajo sandstone and its equivalents (figure
6). The Morrison Formation covers over one million km2 from southern
Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, south to New Mexico, USA (figure 7). But lithology
varies, and it is difficult to determine if it represents a single sedimentary event
during the Flood, since it is dated by dinosaur fossils. Mesozoic sediments are
rare in the Midwest and less extensive in the eastern United States. In any case,
no geologist claims to be able to trace a single formation across North America.

This illustrates a presuppositional dilemma for creationists who accept the time
scale as an accurate template of the rock record. It leads them to unconsciously
follow their uniformitarian colleagues in thinking in terms of time rock units rather
than specific formations. No Mesozoic stratum can be traced across North America,
but the Mesozoic as a time unit represented by a variety of formations, can be.
This illustrates a need for creationists to be more consistent in their work.

This argument will not work if the sedimentation events, and not simply
the era or period, are spread across the continent. Despite the presence of ‘Mesozoic’
rocks around the world, Flood geologists must recognize that the wide variety of
lithologies and assemblages have been so named by applying the a priori
template of the time scale, thus shortcutting the field work needed to really examine
how the rock units can be correlated. Furthermore, the ‘regional’ scale
of some western Mesozoic lithologies should, by the criterion under discussion,
be post-Flood.12

Although Tertiary sedimentary rocks are smaller in scale than Paleozoic sedimentary
rocks, their thickness and lateral extent is still abnormally large compared to
present depositional environments. These sediments fill numerous basins in the western
United States, often exceeding several thousand meters in thickness. The Hanna Basin
in south-central Wyoming contains 7 km of upper Cretaceous, about 4.0 km of Early
Tertiary (Paleocene), and 0.5 km of Late Tertiary sedimentary rock.61 In southwest Montana, the Big Hole Valley contains
4,575 m of Tertiary sedimentary rocks. This basin is 75 km long by 20 km wide, with
an average elevation of 2,135 m above sea level. More startling, erosion has removed
an undetermined thickness of the top layers of Tertiary sediments. Examples could
be multiplied—Imperial Valley in Southern California contains about 6,000
m of sedimentary rocks dated as ‘Late Tertiary’.

The western United States is not unique. Many thousands of meters of Tertiary sedimentary
rocks form the continental shelf, slope, and rise as a sheet around all continents
and large islands. There is especially a vast volume of post-Cretaceous sedimentary
rock in the Gulf Coastal Plain and Gulf of Mexico, as well as the massive thickness
of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its extension as the continental shelf. Thick
Tertiary deposits are found all over the world and would extend this paper to book
length to describe. For instance, Late Tertiary sedimentary rocks are 6,000 to 8,000
m thick in the basins surrounding the Himalaya Mountains.62 The point is that these rocks, while not as continuous
or extensive as their Paleozoic or Mesozoic counterparts would be virtually impossible
to describe in terms of post-Flood processes. In many cases, they fit much better
into the category of late-Flood deposits, created as the Floodwater drained from
the continents, eroding and depositing in one last burst of sedimentation.

Advocates of post-Flood deposition of these rocks need to specify the processes
that would have deposited them in the biblical timeframe. Nebulous ‘post-Flood’
catastrophes seem incomplete at best. Consider the western United States basins.
Erosion from surrounding mountains is difficult to believe if base level was modern
sea level, since the mountains reach altitudes above 3,000 m. If synchronous tectonism
occurred, it created basins up to about 10 km deep that were then filled. That scale
of tectonism in a short time period argues for Flood scale processes. How would
Ark survivors propagate and fill such dangerous regions to provide all the fossils
needed?

Figure 8. Extent of the Fort Union Formation (solid pattern) and
the area from which uniformitarian scientists believe it was eroded (slanted pattern).
The combined area is about 450,000 km2. Some creationists believe this
formation was laid down and eroded after the Flood. (Drawing by Melanie Richard.)

Figure 10. Sentinel Butte, western North Dakota, USA, a flat-topped
mesa about 300 m above the Fort Union Formation. This mesa shows that at least 300
m of sedimentary rock was eroded from on top of the Fort Union Formation.

Figure 11. 600-m high sedimentary erosional remnants in the background
from the northern Greater Green River Basin, southwest Wyoming, USA. The Boar’s
Tusk, the throat of a volcano over 100 m high, is in the foreground. Photograph
by John Whitmore

The early Tertiary Fort Union Formation covers about 150,000 km2 of eastern
Montana, western North Dakota, parts of Wyoming and South Dakota, and part of adjacent
Saskatchewan, Canada (figure 8). The area where it is supposed to have been eroded
is about 300,000 km2. Whitmore and Garner20 think this formation
is post-Flood. But it includes dozens of coal layers combining to more than 100
m thick, including the Wyodak Coal Seam at Gillette, Wyoming (figure 9). What is
the source of plant material after the Flood and how was it transported, concentrated,
and buried here? Could thick, nearly pure, extensive coal seams have formed after
the Flood? To make it more difficult to explain, at least 300 m of sedimentary rock
above the Fort Union Formation was eroded (figure 10).

It seems unusual that these events would occur after the Flood. Also, where is the
erosional debris from these post-Flood catastrophes? We do not find it on the continent.
That means that these post-Flood catastrophes transported rocks from the center
of North America to the surrounding oceans—a feat more likely of the Flood.
It is even more unlikely if they accept uniformitarian classifications of these
rocks as ‘non-marine’. We need concrete hypotheses and mechanisms.

Figure 12. Cross-section of the sedimentary rocks of the north
limb of the San Rafael Swell, central Utah, USA. Dashed lines with question marks
show the strata projected up over the San Rafael Swell, assuming no change in thickness.
‘Du’ means diluvial undifferentiated. Note that the total erosion is
4.2 to 5.1 km. (Drawn by Peter Klevberg.)

Finally, an examination of the geomorphology of the western United States shows
widespread scour and erosion that occurred after Tertiary sedimentary rocks
were laid down. Thousands of feet of sedimentary rock were removed. Valley fills
have been eroded at least 300–600 m, for instance in the Greater Green River
Basin and Fossil Basin of southwest Wyoming, based on erosional remnants and eroded
anticlines (figure 11). The best-known example is the Colorado Plateau which lost
an average of 2.5 to 5 km.63
Since the Colorado Plateau is 337,000 km2, the volume of erosion was
842,000 to 1,700,000 km3. In one area of the northwestern Colorado Plateau,
is the San Rafael Swell, an eroded anticline about 125 km long by 50 km wide.64 Its north limb lost between
4.2 to 5.1 km to erosion,55 near Price, Utah (figure 12). Since the uppermost
eroded formation is the Green River, then this vast erosive event must have occurred
well after the Flood. How did it happen, and where is the sediment?

The timing is clear (at least for those accepting the time scale sequence). Practically
all of this erosion took place in the Tertiary. Schmidt stated:

“What erosional mechanism has been capable of removing such an amount of material
[2,500 to 5,000 m] since the period of denudation began in a geologically brief
timespan, i.e. since the beginning of the Tertiary in the anticlinal uplifts and
since the end of the Eocene in the basins?”65

1.

Definitions of local, regional, and subcontinental not specified

2.

Continental/global scale lithological sequences not demonstrated

3.

Mesozoic ‘regional’

4.

Tertiary deposits can be thick and of regional extent

5.

Great erosion of the tops of Tertiary and other sedimentary rocks.

Table 2. Summary of some of the difficulties with assuming that
the Flood/post-Flood boundary is the change from worldwide/continental to local/regional
sedimentation.

He asks a good question of both uniformitarian and post-Flood catastrophists. These
problems can be easily resolved, however, if it is attributed to the Retreating
Stage of the Flood.40,66
If not, then alternative, reasonable mechanisms must be suggested to account for
the deposition of thick Tertiary deposits and the vast erosive scour of the continent
after the Flood. Even tsunamis, supervolcanic eruptions, hypercanes, and meteorite
impacts cannot account for the actual field data. Hypercanes, for instance, require
still air and hot water to develop, and these conditions would not exist or else
would be rare after the Flood.55 Besides, hypercanes, just like hurricanes,
would dissipate rapidly moving inland, and therefore would be ineffective in causing
huge amounts of rain for erosion far inland from the oceans.

I have examined one area in detail—the western United States, but I suspect
that it is the same all over the world. The claim that Tertiary sedimentary rocks
are post-Flood because they extend over a smaller area than the supposed continental
scale of some Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks ignores the inability of non-Flood events
to accomplish this work and it ignores the mechanisms operating during the Flood—mechanisms
that would have produced quite different results during the early, middle, and late
stages of the Flood. Furthermore, to say that small-scale sedimentation could not
happen during the Flood makes a cartoon of the event, ignoring the vast variety
in hydraulic and geologic conditions that would have existed at different times
and places. Table 2 summarizes the problems with this first argument for the K/T
boundary as the end of the Flood.

Conclusion

At one time, the K/T boundary was considered a logical post-Flood boundary. Evidence
has been suggested to support that position. Part 1 of this article focused on one
of these evidences: the change from worldwide/continental to local/regional sedimentation.
However, this criterion is vague in that the definitions of local, regional, and
subcontinental are not specified. Furthermore, it is doubtful there are any continental
scale lithological layers or sequences, not to speak of worldwide. Mesozoic and
Tertiary sedimentary rocks, although local and regional, are commonly of great thickness
and relative extent—far beyond any present day observed processes. Then after
all the sedimentary rocks were laid down, a great erosion event eroded off over
5 km of sedimentary rocks in places. It is also doubtful that any post-Flood catastrophic
scenarios can account for such observations. Five other evidences suggested for
the K/T boundary hypothesis will be analyzed in part 2.

Acknowledgement

I thank John Reed for reviewing an earlier manuscript and offering many helpful
suggestions. I also thank Melanie Richard for drawing figures 7 and 8.

References

Many geologists have recently converted to neocatastrophism,
rejecting the slow, steady history of uniformitarianism, but maintaining its ‘actualistic’
method. However, actualism is difficult to distinguish from uniformitarianism, and
the acceptance of greater discontinuity in the rock record makes the evidence used
to promote secular natural history less certain. Also, there has been no wholesale
reconstruction of geology as a discipline; no weeding out of the many decades of
uniformitarian assumptions that influenced the methods, assumptions, and conclusions
of geology. The unstated major assumption is that of naturalism in a metaphysical
sense, which of course is not scientific and cannot be justified by science. It
is instead a naked belief system. Furthermore, they do not address the implications
for Flood geology inherent in the rejection of uniformitarianism.
Return to text.

Oard, M.J., The geological column is a general Flood order
with many exceptions; in: Reed, J.K. and Oard M.J. (Eds.), The Geological Column:
Perspectives within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society Books,
Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 99–121, 2006. Return to text.

Whitmore J.H. and Garner, P., Using suites of criteria to
recognize pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood strata in the rock record with application
to Wyoming (USA); in: Snelling, A.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship and Institute for
Creation Research, Pittsburgh, PA, and Dallas, TX, pp. 425–448, 2008.
Return to text.

The ‘new atheists’ claim that Christianity doesn’t have answers to evolution. This site begs to differ, with over 8,000 fully searchable articles—many of them science-based. Help us keep refuting the skeptics. Support this site

Comments closed

A reader’s comment

Russ H.,United States, 25 December 2011

Amen, Mike! The RATE project offers another reason to prefer the flood/post-flood boundary near the top of the Cenozoic strata: the 70 megayears worth of nuclear decay embodied in the Cenozoic would kill living things if it occurred in their environment during, say, the first millennium after the flood. Background radiation during the Ice age may have been higher than today, but not ~70,000 times higher! It is much better to picture the Cenozoic accelerated decay as occuring while creatures were still aboard the ark, safe from most of the radiation.